Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: github.com/openzeppelin/contracts #3334

Closed
sambacha opened this issue Apr 10, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

Feature: github.com/openzeppelin/contracts #3334

sambacha opened this issue Apr 10, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@sambacha
Copy link

🧐 Motivation

Simplicity.

Additionally, if unwilling to migrate repo to new fqdn, create a contracts repo that only has tagged releases and accepts no PRs/etc: basically.

The real motivation is for git-assited installs of @openzeppelin/contracts

📝 Details
Move the repo to point at just github.com/openzeppelin/contracts as opposed to github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/

Alt: duplicate tagged releases in that repo with only tagged releases being mirrored.

@frangio
Copy link
Contributor

frangio commented Apr 11, 2022

Please provide more details as to the motivation. If "simplicity", currently the simplest option is to install from npm. If you have an issue with npm, please expand on that. Can you describe the tooling you would use for git assisted installs? Would you expect this repository to contain only the contents of the contracts directory?

@frangio
Copy link
Contributor

frangio commented May 16, 2022

The reason this repository is not called openzeppelin/contracts is that forks would get names like sambacha/contracts and this is too generic and will clash often.

Feel free to provide more info in reply to my questions above.

@frangio frangio closed this as completed May 16, 2022
@sambacha
Copy link
Author

The reason this repository is not called openzeppelin/contracts is that forks would get names like sambacha/contracts and this is too generic and will clash often.

Feel free to provide more info in reply to my questions above.

Sorry @frangio just saw your message, I should have been more explicit, in stating that creating a new repo to point towards this would be better, either way I understand 💯

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants